This talk page is for discussing the Zamorak page.

Edits Edit

Just to let everyone know, I did some edits to this article. I added the vestment items into the article as items affiliated with Zamorak since, well.. They are.. But they appear to have been omitted. Hope that's okay. JadeTora 07:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Jade

Decided to clean it up a little so I gave the Vestments a little separate part to the rest. Looks neater that way. JadeTora 07:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Jade

He is not a villain but rather a god that defies classifiction.(dienity defies classifaction.

Why? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 09:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course hes a villain, and a villain is evil. Zamorak is evil. The Evil Dude 13:19 25 February 2007 (UTC)

However as seen in the God Letters he is not the God of pure evil. Just chaos

Zamorak is a God of evil. This is stated by several NPCs in RS, and I think he even admits he's evil in one of the God Letters (not completely sure about the God Letters bit). Telos 08:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

   Zamorak is a god of chaos. He is misunderstood and misinterpreted across Gielinor, and yes, many (Saradominist) NPCs are likely to believe he is evil. However, NPCs are just in-game people, and liable to take their own spin on things. ~~Dr.Professor~~

How much is full rune zammy now, I heard the priced droped..`=O--Attack Ancient Fofo Slayer 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the old pic? the new one looks like a weird imp Chef's hat Altarius95 The Master Cook! Talk to me Cooking cape (t)

This is the only image that I know of. Zeldafanjtl 04:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The image got updated. --~ Fire Surge icon Sentry Telos Talk 

Mortal Zamorak Edit

It says that Zamorak was once a human, but how could he be, if in the "History of RuneScape" section of the RuneScape Manual, it says he was one of the gods who created Gielinor? White partyhat old C Teng talk 00:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Zamorak was a Majharrat (spelling?), not a human. Guthix created Gielinor.Yellow partyhat Ilyas Talk Contribs 00:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The History of RuneScape guide is very vague and innacurate. It's meant to be what is taught to the children of RuneScape, but because alot of RuneScape history is not common knowledge anymore, it's not very accurate. It gives a disclaimer at the top of the article. Morian Smith 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Back in my time (a half of a decade ago), people assumed that Guthix shaped the world to his liking then went to sleep, Saradomin and Zamorak then came around and then shaped the world as they liked it felinoel ~ (Talk) 19:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont really know how to use this, but like theres now a giant golden zamorak statue outside the choas temple near the wildy border!

...Zamorak is the God of Chaos, why else would you find his statue in a Chaos Temple. I don't think I would be too surprised if I found a statue of Saradomin on Entrana.

Charlegme 11:48, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

The Story Edit

I'll lay this down for y'all. Basically what happened was that in the First Age, Guthix came to Gielinor and found it was more-or-less blank (the jury is out on whether races like the Dragonkin or TzHaar were already there), and shaped it to his liking. Then, he went to sleep for several thousand years, and the First Age ended. In the early Second Age, gods like Zaros, Saradomin, Bandos, Armadyl and those in the Desert Pantheon (again, it's not known if Seren was already in RuneScape, as Elves were present in the First Age; See Meeting History), and the god Icthlarin, son of Tumeken brought the race called the Mahjarrat into RuneScape from their realm of Freneskae, but they chose to break away from Icthlarin because of his peaceful ways and followed the more chaotic (but not to say evil) Zaros.

Before long, however, one particularly hateful and warlike Mahjarrat, called Zamorak, wanted rid of Zaros so he could replace him and be worshipped. This led to his rebellion with several followers including his fellow Mahjarrat Hazeel, a human follower called Viggora and the Vampyre Lord Lowerniel Vergidiyad Drakan and several others. They managed to steal the Staff of Armadyl and the weakest Mahjarrat, Lucien, placed a spell on it so Zaros could not detect it. Zamorak ambushed him and impaled him on the staff. Zaros, becoming angry, thrust himself at Zamorak and impaled him aswell. Zaros' powers were drained from him and through the staff, now embedded in Zamorak's chest, and into the Mahjarrat. Zamorak then rose to become the god of chaos and this initiated the God Wars and the Third Age which we should all know a little about by now.

As for Saradomin, well, opinion is divided, but some say Armadyl gave his godly powers to Saradomin when he fled Gielinor (after the war, following the extinction of the Aviantese. When the God Wars was at its most violent, Guthix was woken up by the sound of the fighting, and came to the surface. He saw the battle-scarred land and the destruction the gods had caused, and he became angry. He commanded the gods to stop, and they did so. He then established the Edicts of Guthix before departing underground again, stopping briefly in a cave to rest. He thought about his beautiful world, destroyed by the carnage, and he wept. Then, he went back into the planet's core and fell to sleep once again. The Guthixian Edicts dictate that none of the gods can interfere with their followers directly, and they can't fight with eachother any more. However, there are Zamorakian and Saradominist conspirators working to break these rules; See Legacy of Seergaze. That's about all there is to it. There's stuff with Bandos and the Goblins, but that's another storyline altogether, and one for another time. Hope this helps everyone.

Asparagoose 00:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually Lucien is not the weakest Mahjarrat (he's probably the strongest). 11:35, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

No, he is the weakest. The reason he's so strong in While Guthix Sleeps is because he has the Staff of Armadyl, a godweapon. He is physically the weakest, described by Viggora as a weakling who "struggled to lift a sword", and he's level like 14 in Temple of Ikov.11:47, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Image Edit

The image of Zamorak from the God letters was pretty cool looking, why aren't you guys using that picture here as well as the modern look for Zamorak? felinoel ~ (Talk) 19:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I see, so if I were to just add this old version of Zamorak no one would mind? felinoel ~ (Talk) 05:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You mean the one from the pre-RS2 God Letters? I think that would be fine, I don't see why not. ~ Fire Surge icon Sentry Telos Talk 

Wikipedia links? Edit

Why is there a link to the Wikipedia article on Hades? I know Zamorak is associated with demons, but what does that have to do with Hades? Also, I don't think the link to chaos is needed either. ~ Fire Surge icon Sentry Telos Talk  08:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the Wikipedia link to Hades, unless anyone has any reasonable objections. ~ Fire Surge icon Sentry Telos Talk  06:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but the link to Chaos makes sense since Zamorak is the god of Chaos.Till Hell Freezes Over 20:39, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Zamarak: God of chaos and good? Perhaps? Edit

Does Zammy have any protagonist followers? After all, he isn't evil, per se. Seeing how he kill Zaros, he must have something against evil as a lifestyle? Anyone? -- 23:18, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

Just because you kill a bad guy (assuming Zaros is evil) doesn't make you a good guy. Zamorak did it because he wanted to be a god. WWTDD? 23:40, September 22, 2009 (UTC)
Zaros was not evil. It's a common misconception that he was the god of evil, but it's not the case. And as for your question, no, Zamorak is not evil. Nor is Saradomin good. They're the gods of Chaos and Order, they just represent two extremes on each side of the spectrum. And on your notes about protagonists, it depends on what you class as a protagonist. Some characters who follow him are benevolent, even helpful to the player, but they're still kind of nasty and you get the feeling that they don't like you. If I had to pick an example for this, then I'd go with Malignus Mortifer. He's angry, testy and mean, but still eventually helps you. Sort of.
Counteracted easily by the Zamorak Mage and Dark Mage, both of whom seem at least ambivelent, if not friendly.Till Hell Freezes Over 03:38, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

20:00, September 23, 2009 (GMT)

That doesn't make him good? Of course he's good! He's the god of war and pain and death and evil. He's the one that gave you all your quests! All hail lord Zamorak!!!

Zamorak godswordJango 122333Rune platebody (Zamorak) 23:48, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Just gonna put this out there....<image removed> 01:31, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Pots of zomorok Edit

Pots with the symbol of zomorak! What is zomorak? An item, or whateverelse? Yuppers, humping with dot but point is clear, fix it up!

Anon added a piece of trivia suggesting a poll that Zamorak ranked least out of 6 gods in a poll (not yet found in poll database). However, a poll from Jul 2010 suggests otherwise. This poll ranks him fourth above Armadyl and Bandos (as well as many minor deities). Does anyone know if a recent poll of this nature did occur? 30percent 03:16, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

Was it really neccessary to mock the person who mispelt that? Couldn't you have just edited it yourself?Till Hell Freezes Over 19:46, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Removal of BiasEdit

Can we try to go through this article and remove all bias, please? All of the most famous actions of "evil" committed by Zamorak have NPCs willing to argue against them (the first paragraph has information on the burning of the Wizard's Tower, completely leaving out Malignus Mortifer's version of events), and the Zamorak Mage and Dark Mage of the Abyss are two of the most useful NPCs in the game. I think players deserve, at the very least, to receive an accurate and informative view of Zamorak, rather than a Saradominist viewpoint. Even if the game itself is biased towards Saradomin. Till Hell Freezes Over 03:34, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the Removal of Bias but this isn't about Zamorak's followers like the ones you mentioned, it's about Zamorak and i'm pretty sure that even Zamorak's followers do very evil things anyway. Sliske symbol Draconis E Talk Illuminated Book of Balance 02:07, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Zamorak: think Edit

Why do people think he's evil? Chaos isn't evil itself, thought it almost always leads to evil. Zamorak can be good, can't he? Take a few minutes to think about it. BaconRanger 19:56, February 22, 2012 (UTC)BaconRanger

Well Zamorak isn't evil, he is a rebel to be honest. Most mahjarrat look up to Zamorak as a great hero for standing up to Zaros, so......he is evil to Saradomin, but really just causes chaos, that's it. Also, Saradomin accuses Zamorak of being evil, but Saradomin is a hipocrite, but that's in my opinion and not for this artical. To sum up, he isn't evil, just likes chaos. JeffGC64 (talk) 06:10, September 1, 2012 (UTC)JeffGC64
Yayyy, Moral Nihilism lecture time! First off, assuming Zamorak is evil isn't fair to him, because although he's shown a very chaotic attitude in the past, we have nothing to support the idea that he's actually evil. Even his statements in the God Letters show nothing of his perspective, because those are non-canon and can't be used to indicate anything. 
Second, evil is based entirely upon perspective. Zamorak burnt that town. That seems wrong, yes? But it spurred the citizens into action, causing them to come together, to save their home from disaster, to save each other, etc. So is that wrong? Especially considering he did that with that in mind? 
From a Saradominist's perspective, where Chaos is basically synonomous with Evil (their God is the God of Order, according to static allignments which are also pretty inaccurate but whatever), Zamorak is definitely evil. That's why you keep hearing about how evil he is, about how he eats babies and drinks the tears of widdows and widdowers, and about how all his statues are of 'the evil god Zamorak,' etc. But from an unbiased standpoint, it's a lot less clear. Until we meet him, which we probably will in a few months (no source so don't quote me on this), we have no accurate way of determining his allignment according to our own sensibilities. Even then, we'll probably have different opinions because your sensibilities may be much different than mine. Snowskeeper---Till Hell Freezes Over. (talk) 18:01, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


Okay I'm gonna kill someone and burn their home. It's not necessarily evil because I stopped them from      annoying their neighbours and I also got the police to work. Twist it and turn it because you're bored,          Zamorak is evil, if there is order there never is injustice, because if there is injustice there is no order.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) on 13:34, August 15, 2013.
Well apparently he is. The examination of the Zamorak statue in the Witch's House says he's evil, the examination of the Varrockian Chaos Altar basically says the same... and a number of people said that examination = lore. Based on that conclusion I added Evil to Zamorak's philosophy on this page. I don't see what the problem is. . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 18:12, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Remember that, until now, the player has been railroaded along the path of either Saradominist, Guthixian or Armadylian beliefs; the followers of all three gods believe that Zamorak is evil. Bandos is arguably far more amoral, to the point where he causes his own forces to fight each other for his own amusement; there are no descriptions of Bandos as evil in-game. 
The examine texts are just as biased as the Saradominist NPCs, and cannot be taken at face-value. Wait until we actually meet Zamorak instead of making the assumption that everything the NPCs say and the player-character thinks is automatically true. His rational followers--IE, the Dagon-Hai in the Chaos Tunnels, Maliginus Mortefer (Spelling is probably wrong there), Moldark, etc. seem to believe he isn't evil, and as such we can't make that assumption. Snowskeeper---Till Hell Freezes Over. (talk) 18:18, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
I understand, but that is not the point made. Nothing was said about the perspectives of other NPCs mattering when it came to our own character's examination, which, apparently, besides being lore, is also objective. . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 18:24, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
That was certainly true of those 'cute' 'pets' in the Gnome storyline, huh? 
The examination is the player character's own observations about the environment. They are often inaccurate, foolish, snarky or downright sarcastic. I don't agree that they're lore, and they're certainly not objective. Snowskeeper---Till Hell Freezes Over. (talk) 18:27, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
I could not agree more, nevertheless. It was decided, I did not win the discussion as you can see.. :( Hence, RSwikia should now implement that decision on all it's pages. Unless of course we start deciding that each and every page will have its own rules... I could eb wrong on that one too, but that seems just silly. . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 18:54, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

He still is a MahjarratEdit

Hello, can't the "Former Mahjarrat" part be removed? Just because he became a God, doesn't mean his race would change. MahjarratInfo101 08:30, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, gods usually take on their natural form (the form they were in when they ascended to godhood). e.g Saradomin looks much like a human, only difference is his blue tinted skin. So yeah, I agree with you, remove it if you like. Sliske symbol Draconis E Talk Illuminated Book of Balance 08:36, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Zamorak is not the god of powerEdit

It has been confirmed in a few above the lore podcasts by Mod Osborn that zamorak is not the god of power, but he would like to think so. If he were the god of power, he would be the most powerful god there is. He is the god of chaos. The only way his godliness is associated with power is his philosiphy that power comes through chaos. He is not actuly the god of power. Green Mage48 (talk) 06:41, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Aye. Fairly sure Zaros would be the god of power, being affiliated with control and all that. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 06:52, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
But Guthix was still more powerful. Sliske symbol Draconis E Talk Illuminated Book of Balance 07:14, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Power is not the same as Contro or Fate. Power isn't the same as Destruction or Chaos either, but Chaos and Destruction also aren't synonyms. They are just words that the gods use to describe their philosophy. What Moldark says can be seen as Power... to say it "negatively" they're just PR-words. They are not descriptions of the real objective world. . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 10:43, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Well why is he being called the god of power on the wiki if he is not the god of power, rather the god of power through chaos. Every god has the teachings of power through something; ie Armadyl, power through justice. In fact Bandos has more right to this title if it must be given since he is all about the strongest surviving. This becomes even more proven after the battle of Lumbridge, Saradomin does not have power over power, yet he defeated him... Green Mage48 (talk) 05:26, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
Because when we examined him, that was what it said, he is power. Plus, giving him the aligment power doesn't mean he would be the strongest.Guthix symbol Adventurerrr Talk The Godless symbol 11:29, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
Well, no fucking duh. I'm the god of power. All bow down to me! MolMan 11:39, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
He's also not the god of Chaos... Sliske makes things waaay more chaotic, shall I remove chaos too?? Btw, Tuska certainly is more destructive, so shall I remove destruction from Amascut and Zamorak both too?? . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 18:16, January 29, 2014 (UTC)
Just because Sliske is more chaotic, it doesn't mean he's a God of Chaos. Zamorak actually encourages his followers to grow stronger through chaos, which is why he's considered a Chaos God, so stop being foolish. Zamorak thinks he's the God of Power, and that's what he tells his followers, but believe it or not, Chaos isn't the only way to gain power. My point being, just because Zamorak teaches his followers that Chaos is a good way to gain power, it doesn't make it Him a God of Power. If it does, Bandos, Zaros, Sliske, and Guthix are all Gods of Power. >.<
@Green Mage48 By your logic, every God is a God of power. Scorpius IV (talk) 07:11, January 30, 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't, you mistake my logic. Zamorak 'says' he is the god of power (or his followers say). Saradomin says he's the god of wisdom or is asscociated with him. Just because Bandos calls himself the god of war does not mean there cannot be any war now, because its god died. No, god's don't cause the thing we call alignment. They see it as a term/concept that's important to their philosophy. Zamorak values personal power, Bandos has similar ideas, might like Zaros like meritocracy similar to how Zamorak does. But that doesn't mean "Power" is as relevant to all of them and certainly not in the sense Zamorak means it. Guthix, Seren, Armadyl, Elidinis, Saradomin, etc. all sort all align themselves with peace in some ways, but some of these gods are more out spoken about it, or value other things more. That doesn't mean "it's all equal".
To say "we mustn't call Zamorak the god of power because he's not the most powerful elder god" is just plain ridiculous. Again, it's not about what they objectively are, it's what they (say to) value. If you really want such a literalist/minimalist interpretation of Zamorak, why not extrapolate that to other gods...?? Because it's nonsense. Don't do that to Zamorak either then... . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 10:19, January 30, 2014 (UTC)
I hesitate to stick my Saradominist nose in a discussion about Zamorak, but seeing the edit wars I figured I'd share my opinion. It seems that Leon's argument is that because Zamorak says that he's the god of power, that's what he we should go by. This would be a great argument, except for two things. Firstly, from the original post in this section, the farthest I can glean is that Zamorak would like to be the god of power, which is not quite the same thing as saying that he is the god of power. It's a small but important distinction. Secondly, just because he says he is doesn't mean that this philosophy is widely recognized or embraced. Let's assume that I'm a god and I have people who follow me as the god of chemistry. I could declare myself to be the god of moles, but if my followers don't recognize that then I'm still only the god of chemistry. In short, it's what Zamorak's followers recognize that is important. The opinion of player followers is hard to gauge, but I think it's better to use NPC followers as a metric anyway. I can't think of any Zamorakians who distinctly say that he is the god of power (rather than some generic statements about being powerful, which is definitely not the same). Until I see that, I cannot support the notion that Zamorak is a god of power. --LiquidTalk 13:50, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
It appears I have been summoned here repeatedly in spite of my earlier statement, which boiled down to "why the heck would anyone want to discuss this when [the incorrect alignment] has been removed by a multitude of users and continuously readded for no reason by one?" My opinion is ipso facto clear, but to briefly say something that would count as argumentation; as Liquidhelm remarked, an alignment is not a favourite colour one can choose and switch at random. What matters is how Zamorak is perceived by his followers, which is not as the god of power. He's powerful and -hungry, no dispute possible, but nothing at all would state that he is seen as the god of power (nor destruction, while we're here). As far as I'm aware, a single - and may I add no longer used - examine text refers to him as such, and that is not really a good source of gods' alignments, not least if they are so substantially different from the established one(s), id est chaos. That, and it isn't representative for his clergy. At all. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 15:12, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
Okay I see a few misunderstandings here.
  1. As a Saradominist you can still comment on your mortal enemy, as long as you're honest, like Saradomin said in, The Death of Chivalry: "Even Zamorak wouldn't condone the loss of life without reason. Destruction must serve a purpose".
  2. People seem to think that if you claim to be "The God of X" you should indeed literally be the best candidate for X or (single) cause of X. Sure, Bandos tried to make War when there's peace, but he doesn't cause war in the literal sense. Bandos is now dead, there is still war. Saradomin calls himself the god of light, etc, but he doesn't shine, he doesn't even look the brightest, Seren likely does, she's crystalline. Sliske arguably was better at creating/setting up war and chaos than both Bandos and Zamorak in this age. But we don't award him these titles. Tumeken isn't light, he isn't the sun, but people call him that. I don't know why people want to go all literal on these things, it's clear: it's metaphorical. I mean just read the dialogues of Moldark, Moia, the Book of Zamorak, Zamorakian quartermaster, Zamorakian soldiers during BoL. The affection for power just drips from them, literally even. Their alignment or philosophy is what they value, but at the same time their philosophy isn't completely written out to us. "Order" is not a philosophy, it's a term, a summary, ... a catchphrase if you will. Same is true for other words like light, wisdom, purity. The same goes for Zamorak too: chaos, destruction, power, invention creation etc. These are words to sum up their alignment/philosophy, don't expect to find an elaborate description, don't expect there to be some sort of causal relationship, don't expect an election: "who is the most powerful god, ah, then that's the god of power".. we know who would win: Jas. And it's a pointless and painfully essentialist idea.
  3. It is clear he is, in recent lore, perceived not just as "Evil" or "Chaos", but also as Creation/invention, destruction and power, and yes, also by his followers. But how he is seen by his followers is hardly the one true measure. Play MPD and listen what Zamorak had to say about his follower Dawn. Jagex said that this happens a lot, philosophies distorted and not the true notion of what he means.
  4. The idea that this is not representative of his clergy... is silly. Monk of Zamorak have no dialogue to speak of, on top of that they are rather old content to begin with - from the time Zamorak=Evil. Now, lots of new lore has been added with the advent of the 6th age. Same goes for destruction too. Damn, that's even more clear: it's been commented on as well by Jmods. You, Fswe, credit yourself for being a lorehound, but you just choose to ignore so many things. You complain that you have to come back here.... Don't worry you don't have to, just don't complain if things change to stuff you don't like. The fact that a [correct] alignment has been removed a multitude by different people, doesn't make that truth. It might have something to do with the discussion not being over. Read back. Go ahead. Besides Mole the troll, there were literalist and essentialist readings of the word Power to counter Raul's and my points. Hardly a proper interaction. . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 13:37, February 6, 2014 (UTC)
2 proves my/Liquid's point. Glad you agree. :) 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 13:41, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Then reread again. You say the opposite. Really try to do more effort, I know it's hard for you. . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 20:27, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

It seems IPs do not read discussions: . Have fun, preferrably without causing another revert-war ^^ . IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 05:30, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Joy. Why are we discussing this again, though? AFAIK when a statement is removed by a multitude of users and only one or two keep readding it, it counts as vandalism. Just sayin'. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 15:32, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
Removed until this discussion finishes. --LiquidTalk 15:37, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
Instead of making dumb-ass statements ("Why are we discussing this again"), fswe, you can also address ppls points. You know why we discuss it, it's wikia, we discuss things if there is a disagreement. Still waiting for you o reply. If you don't I will just have to re-add it. You're soooooo keen on using Latin when ever you can, so enjoy: Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit. I've clearly asked for your reply, I'm still awaiting it. If NO-ONE reacts, I will assume I have convinced people. I am patient and await your answer(s). . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 15:45, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
"Tacet - igitur concessit" res tuas ratum non facit. Taceo nam disputare nihil attinet; etiam disputando non persuadeberis. Si quid plures abrogant, uni usque addere non licet - praesertim in hoc casu enim firmamenta refella sunt. Instare desinas sermo hoc stultum factum iri... 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 18:46, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
You two cut that out. Use English. Others need to be able to understand what you're saying too. --LiquidTalk 18:54, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
To translate Leon's stuff: "They who are silent appear to consent, where they could and should have spoken." My stuff: ""He says nothing - therefore he has agreed" does not make your points valid. I am quiet for it is pointless to debate; even by dicussing will you not be convinced. If multiple people get rid of something, one may not continuously add it - especially in this case, for the cores of their arguments have been disproven. You should stop insisting that this stupid discussion take place..." 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 19:05, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
Since Leon still seems adamant about this, I've taken the opportunity of spitting through the thingies he mentioned, most notably Moldark's dialogue. Aside from the highly unreliable, and, may I add, removed, examine text, bsolutely nothing points towards "power" being an alignment of Zamorak's on par with chaos. In fact, that same Moldark's dialogue hardly even implies it. The confusion here is between "alignment" and "affiliation", methinks. Zamorak is eager to claim power for himself and have his followers attain it through chaos (his preferred method ideologically speaking, i.e. his alignment (Leon prefers 'philosophy' - voìla)), aye, but it cannot be concluded (from what I've gone through, at least, which includes but is not limited to Moldark, Moia's diary, Iban-related texts, Bringing Back Zamorak and Dagon'hai texts) to be the very core of his beliefs, unlike 'chaos'. His beliefs revolve around power not because he is specifically aligned to power in a way that the first association with the word 'power' is 'Zamorak', but because it is - ultimately - the goal. His alignment, chaos, is the means of attaining this goal. Consider "Strength through Wisdom/Balance/Chaos" - evidently, all three gods strive for power. It's the means by which they to do so that differ. Zamorak thinks chaos is the path to power, Saradomin believes order and rationalism are and Guthix desires for balance in all. Power is not something specifically Zamorakian - by that logic, every other god would have it in their infobox (Saradomin, Bandos and Zaros come to mind), which would ipso facto (guh, Latin) cause it to cease being an alignment at all! Why should, therefore, Zamorak be an exception? Answer: he shouldn't. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 15:47, February 12, 2014 (UTC)
  1. lol, of course it doesn't make it right. That's not what I said(!!) or meant. But you must see that you cannot hijack a page simply because you refuse to discuss the disagreement. The core (of my argument) has not been disproven at all... You seem to think so, but again, I ask you: show me how. You only talk around the issue and drag things into it that I do not claim or think support my case.
  2. It seems clear to me that Zamorak and Zamorakian value power. Armadyl and Armadyleans probably favour discussion, consensus etc. this is what you can see in their dialogue. But Zamorakians favour it so much it becomes a goal on it's own.
  3. Again, when you focus on juxtaposing Chaos with Power, Chaos wins. I don't care for that argument because that's not important at all. I have not said that Power is on par with Chaos. Chaos is the primary term/tenet (or 'the 'core' as you like to tall it), Power a secondary or tertiary term that's used to sum up his alignment, affiliation or philosophy. To try and make it seem as if I would set Power on the same level as Chaos, is incorrect. So do not argue against that, I am not making that argument. You are wasting both our times in doing that.
  4. Another point: you really seem keen to not call it a philosophy. But why?? Jagex calls it that. Jagex says that you should not use one word to describe their.. sorry, philosophy. Jagex says that one word (like Control) could, in some instances, have a nearly identical meaning to other words (like Order). If you want to call Chaos an Alignment or Affiliation, it will not make it soo much more understandable. Quite the contrary, the world Philosophy has a connotation that demands more than just one "keyword". While the other two words, at least to me, do not demand this in the same degree. I urge you to read at least the first paragraph of Gods#Philosophy. When added it, you only changed some words and/or interpunction. That makes it seem that you agreed with me on that whole part - at least in the basic idea. It hasn't really been changed since. I don't understand what your problem is with my choice of words and the concept of the word, you seemed to agree.
  5. When you ask me to consider "Strength through Wisdom/Balance/Chaos", but that isn't only just very old lore; it's also something about their primary [insert your favoured term]. I have not said, I did not mean, I did not imply .. that strength, power, ... wealth (for what I care), is something that is only sought by one god/person/what-ever. What I did say is that this may well be more important for some, and less for others. Again this Armadyl example: "We all - mortal and god alike - can share this world. But for us to work together, consensus and law are required.", this sentiment is surely shares by Saradominists to a degree too, but for Armadyleans this much much more important. The same can be said with power. To take an example, Moldark says "Like Zamorak, we should all be ready to take power when offered." Soran would not say this, neither would Taw'Paak, Holstein or Endwyr, Relomia. Maybe Murknose... If this is not an example that "power" not a a result, but more as a concept, is something that is valued as a thing-of-its-own rather than a mere tool. Then... well, I just can't see how you can read over this. I mean: Zaros had an empire as a tool/means to his goal. Saradomin bought Goblins to fight for him, etc. etc. these are all means/tools to achieve something they desire ('control', 'order'), but those things also give them 'power'. But for Zamorak(ians) power is more than just a tool or a means to an end. It's something they value 'intrinsically'. Why not try to refute this point??
  6. Btw: 'therefore' can be used instead of 'ipso facto', at least in that specific context.
  7. You also say there is an examination text that has been removed... yes, obviously it is. The Battle of Lumbridge is over. You cannot mine the divine tears anymore, but that doesn't mean Jagex regards it as incorrect. So what does it matter???
  8. Thanks, . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 12:11, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
2nd paragraph: you're mixing up stuff. Zamorak and Armadyl both value power - however, the former thinks chaos is needed to attain it, the latter prefers discussion. ALL gods and mortals value power - their vision on how to get hold of it, how to live their lives, differs. Zamorak could say "Chaos is needed for the best society" and Armadyl would substitute 'chaos' with 'consensus' or whatever. He'd never say "Power is [...] society" because it's a goal, not a tool to achieve something (doel, geen middel). The latter, which you seem to claim, makes absolutely no sense.
4tg paragraph: Zamorak's philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with power. Well, aside from his philosophy being, well, er, that exactly - his philosophy. I.e. an ideology and methodology which he deems best for acquiring power. The same can be said for the philosophy of any god. Again, power is not a specifically Zamorakian goal and by no means whatsoever a Zamorakian vision - as I've stated countless times now, viewing 'power' as a tool for something, and a tool that Zamorakians value more than anyone else, is utter bollocks.
5th paragraph: Of course Taw'paak etc. wouldn't say that. Their gods have other means of achieving power - exactly those things you mentioned; building an empire or buying goblins or having a discussion or whatever. Zamorak's means to attain power revolve around chaos; Saradomin's revolve around order.; Guthix' around balance etc. That doesn't make Zamorak more aligned to power than the other gods; at any rate not sufficiently to warrant it being his "secondary alignment". Power is not, something Zamorakians value more than others. At most it can be said they focus more on the result of an ideal Zamorakian society because there isn't really a point in carefully thinking 'chaos' through (otherwise it wouldn't be chaos, now, would it?), and that other gods' followers spend time on their envisioned way to attain power as well, but that wouldn't give Zamorak more than a mere affinity with power. Which, for the seventeenth time, everyone has. I am not going to dignify "very old lore" with a response.
6th paragraph: You, sir, have no sense of humour!
7th paragraph: You're contradicting yourself now. How is a single examine text sufficient a source to base a god's entire philosophy on? Axiomatically nonsense because 'power' is by no means a philosophy, as I have explained too often now. But also...shouldn't we call him the god of evilness then? After all, that other examine text describes him as such - in fact other texts do too. No, we shouldn't. Ironical, 'innit? 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 14:08, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

So another analogy. Zaros wants control. That’s his main goal. In order for him to become fate and have control ‘over everything’ he needs some way of accomplishing that goal. One way to do this is to have a large empire, that way he can pretty much be quite confident that he controls lots of things, even things that do not fall within his empire. Through, for example: diplomacy, trade, the sheer dominating and impressive size of his empire and there are other influences still.

BUT that empire is not necessarily the only way to get to your goal. There could well be other ways. Simply put: Zaros can use control of his empire (as a means) to control everything (the goal).

The same can be said for Zamorak. Sure they both want influence, power, sovereignty, etc. But for Zamorak power is something that is something that you should pursue regardless of its use to a goal. It’s a goal in its own right. Being powerful, or striving to be more powerful is to also actualize yourself (Maslow). Sure, being powerful is useful if you want to reach a goal, but it’s also something he values in it’s own right. This is dripping from the Moldark dialogue and Moia is a fine example of how power as a goal can make you a free person.

If you think that “philosophy in RS” means “an ideology and methodology which he deems best for acquiring power”, then… well, that also really conflicts with the part I directed you to before Gods#Philosophy. It clearly means something much more meaningful. Why else would Osborne say “ We've taken a lot of time to decide what the philosophy of each is. To make sure they're viable, something you can really stand behind!”. Sure he could mean “philosophy is a practical manual for achieving power”, but why would they invent a completely new definition for that word?? It’s iffy enough as it is. And why do you think they mean it as such??

If Taw’Paak wouldn’t say that because “their gods have other means of achieving power” how would Moldark’s quote make any sense at all??? “Like Zamorak, we should all be ready to take power when offered.” We need to take power to be powerful?? This is such an obvious tautology if power is only seen as a tool/means. If power really is only a tool to achieve a goal, then Taw’Paak and any other emissary would probably also think: “Sure, we want to be more powerful to actualize out main goal, so if we can be more powerful, we should try to!”

I have no sense of humour?? Clearly (“(guh, Latin)”) you have not forgotten that people ask you to not speak Latin that much. So if I correct you in order to honour their request, you say I have no sense of humour? I was merely staying inline with RuneScape:Assume good faith‎ and assuming you indeed didn't know the correct English word.

Seeing as you have replied to many other statements I made, I can dismiss this point (“How is a single examine text sufficient a source to base a god's entire philosophy on?”) out of hand completely. You’re lying and you know it. That is NOT the only source I claim to justify my suggestion. This is a clear strawman.

Lastly, I will try to educate you again... simply saying “ 'power' is by no means a philosophy, as I have explained too often now.” Does not make your point true., I have also explained/argued too often now that power is to be seen in that light: as more than just a means. If you really think a ‘philosophy’ can be one word… then… never mind. . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 12:46, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to reply to this until you stop being a condescending arse, if you'll excuse me. I'm tired of your constant "I'm right because you're wrong" attitude and I am not inclined to "discuss", or whatever it is we're doing here, anything else, seeing that you simply disregard everything said which isn't in full agreement with your opinion. Most evident in this last response, which obviously shows that you either didn't read what I'd said or didn't understand it. Oh, you're also contradicting yourself. No offence, but I've just about enough of your attitude. Go 'educate' other people. I don't have to put up with this. Good day, sir. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 16:11, February 14, 2014 (UTC)
I think I should point out a very major point in why Zamorak should be considered god of power.  Saradomin believes that order is a goal to achieve, and this goal is achieved through wisdom (specifically his own, but let's not get into Saradomin's egotism here,) as such, Saradomin is god of order and wisdom.  The same can be said for Armadyl with regards to liberty:  His goal is liberty, achieved through a cooperative quest for justice, as such, Armadyl is god of liberty and justice.  Following that pattern, and reading every bit of lore available about Zamorak's philosophy, that means that, since Zamorak's philosophy is "Gain power, use chaos to do it," that Zamorak is god of power and chaos.  Saying that Zamorak is not god of power means that you must also be willing to say that Saradomin is not god of order, since the logic responsible for both claims is the same, and so if one is wrong, both are. 09:53, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
Yes... I think that's basically what I've been saying too. Thanks for rewording it, maybe that helps? So... I'm also still waiting for Fswe to reply to my points too. . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 22:45, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Given the lack of debate, I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion as no consensus for adding in power to Zamorak's alignment. It will remain this way until a consensus can be reached in favor of adding in power as an alignment. Users cannot engage in edit warring over this in the future. --LiquidTalk 08:05, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

Wait a moment... how can a consensus ever be reached if one side is unwilling to discus? Effectively holding the conversation hostage because it will benefit their point as status quo. . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 15:32, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
Except that there is consensus, LiquidHelium.  Fswe1 refuses to discuss this any further, which means that he has abandoned the topic.  There is currently no one else debating against the idea of Zamorak as a god of power, and two in favor.  What you're doing is saying "No consensus reached" because one person is being obstructionist because they cannot defend their point in any other way.  Unless Fswe1 returns to defend his stance, then a consensus has been reached in favor of adding power to Zamorak's alignment. 06:16, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
In case you've forgotten. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 07:42, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
That was not forgotten.  You outright said that you would not reply, and have yet to adequately defend your point.  Most of what you've said has been the irrelevant argument that power is not a philosophy.  No one's saying that.  Zamorak's philosophy is, at core, that power is a goal in its own right, and that the method of achieving that goal is through chaos, and what AddictEnkidu and I are saying is that the variables in the philosophy (here "Power" and "Chaos") are what dictate Zamorak's alignment.  I invite you to respond, if you please.  I ask only that you remain calm, speak plainly, and get to the point. 09:33, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Godhood Tier?Edit

Since Saradomin gained half a Tier (from 3 to 2.5) does this mean Zamorak lost half a Tier? Is he now 3.5? Or did the power Saradomin gained come entirely from the Crater and not from Zamorak at all? 04ismailjj6 (talk) 22:03, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

It is unknown weather he lost his power, or he remained the same, or also gained some (even if he lost.) Hopefully Mod Mark would explain more seeing is explained SaradominGuthix symbol Adventurerrr Talk The Godless symbol 22:07, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't necessarily mean that. Zaros somehow dropped tier and Zamorak ended up at tier 3. Bandos dropped a tier... but the player hasn't been given that divine energy... it's just lost.
Also: There are 5 Elder God(desse)s; 12 Elder Artefacts; 20 Younger Gods; and an unknown amount of Fractions of gods. You can become a god by killing one (which could give no netto loss or gain in the amount of gods); by mere exposure to elder artefacts. Once you are a god you can pass around elder artefacts and have a whole family become gods, or just do it step by step. Also... I don't think there are 'half' tiers or even decimal tiers. The whole point of that Mod Edam quote (where gods can be more effective than their tier suggests) is to show them as not too rigid, giving each god an even more defined tier number seems to me to be heading in an odd direction. I don't think Mod Mark really meant to say that he's now tier 2.5, but rather meant it as, he's not to be considered tier 2, although he did became more powerful, he's still tier 2. The lower desert gods are also more powerful than the Avatars, but this is not expressed in tiers and a half or even more detailed. . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 09:24, October 5, 2013 (UTC)
Zaros dropped a tier because he abandoned his body, not because Zamorak literally stabbed Zaros in the back with the Staff of Armadyl. Sliske symbol Draconis E Talk Illuminated Book of Balance 09:47, October 5, 2013 (UTC)
And if he didn't drop his body, he would've died. And even then.. Zamorak still became a god, achieved a certain tier, with Zaros not even a tier down. Maybe.. godhood tiers are like exp curves: the closer you are to Elder God status, the more divine energy you have. 200 divine energy is a lot if you're not a god (83 for level 2 in a skill), while it's not a lot if you're already an elder god (could be like maing one item in a skill). . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 10:14, October 5, 2013 (UTC)
IT is unknown if Zamorak dropped or gained, Zaros dropped, only due for him losing his body. I doubt Zamorak did, but it is unknown if he remained, or also gained some. Bandos drop because he uses a lot of power to cheat the Edicts doesn't mean we the player are suppose to gain some of his power. Over all it is unknown still.Guthix symbol Adventurerrr Talk The Godless symbol 10:21, October 5, 2013 (UTC)
I did not dispute that at all :( I said that if Zaros did not leave his body (and thereby making himself drop a tier) he would certainly have been killed and not even have a tier to talk about. Bandos put a lot of his divine energy in making an avatar (which is not cheating, because those tier 7 things were all 'allowed' by Guthix). He dropped in tier after that avatar was killed/destroyed. The avatar was within his power, yet a seprate being. This has been confirmed too, in Q&As or other lore outlets :3 . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 10:46, October 5, 2013 (UTC)
For those looking to revert Zamorak back up to Tier 3, please, PLEASE, check the updated cite note first! Psychemaster (talk) 18:38, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

Human SizedEdit

I was thinking, and checking, should we really call this "human" sized? Maybe mortal Sized would be better, The size he is in isn't human, more like, his own race, but a bit bigger.Guthix symbol Adventurerrr Talk The Godless symbol 10:00, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

Why comment on the size?? Wny not say: BoL and normal. . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 10:50, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

Well for all we know his BoL size is his normal size, and he shrinks down to interact with mortals. Both Saradomin and Zamorak were large when they first teleported in. Also Guthix was giant too and why would he sleep in his non-normal form?. 04ismailjj6 (talk) 10:55, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
To comment on both of you. Gods have the power to change their size. Their original size, are standard, pretty much to what they were when mortal, and then they can change to giant if they please. Guthix picked his size, that was bigger than others, due for his tier (if i am correct that it was stated) and remained that why for unknown reason. So, it's better off giving better title to it, that will not lead to a misunderstanding state. Their Normal size is what they were as mortal, as I stated again, Zamorak seemed in his normal size, but a bit bigger, so it is standard. Saradomin was in a normal size in the death of chivarly quest.Guthix symbol Adventurerrr Talk The Godless symbol 11:04, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
Can you link to the source for Guthix being larger due to his tier? It makes sense but without a source it;s just some cool speculation. As to Zamorak's smaller form being larger than a human, that's probably because he was a Mahjarrat before he ascended, and they're taller than humans at 8-9 feet on average. 04ismailjj6 (talk) 11:33, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
It was in an FAQ, so that source is long gone. And you just proved my point their their size are from race, only different, Saradomin wanna be bad ass, so he copies. Though, idk what bandos it. So Zamorak normal size is what we saw it the missing presumed death maybe.Guthix symbol Adventurerrr Talk The Godless symbol 11:39, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
Saradomin copies what? I don;t understand what you're talking about. The god's smaller form is essentially their god form but at the same scales as their mortal body so they can interact with non-gods. Zamorak appears taller than a human because as a mahjarrat he was. Bandos was some kind of Ogre before he ascended so he appears similarly huge in smaller form. Personally, I think the more powerful a being is, the larger it becomes. The elder gods were large enough to creat entire planets with their hands and Guthix appears larger than Saradomin and Zamorak were at the BoL.04ismailjj6 (talk) 13:17, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
We're in agreement then that it's not human size, it's their standard normal size, well for some of them. And by Saradomin copying, i mean, in how he choses his size to be the same as other gods in the quest missing presumed death. And again, I KNOW Zamorak is the size of a mahj, what i mean he appeared a bit taller in the quest. So we are done here, great agreement and talk.Guthix symbol Adventurerrr Talk The Godless symbol 14:28, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
What? The fact that they're smaller forms aren't human sized was never in dispute. My point was that their BoL forms i.e. their giant forms, are their normal God forms and they shrink down to their smaller forms only to interact with mortals or mortal sized objects and buildings. 04ismailjj6 (talk) 14:32, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
I think Osborne said that the degree to which they can... inflate themselves is based on their tier. Being a god in not normal by any standard, I would attest. Having a normal size as a god seems to me to be a statement that requires muh more knowledge about the gods we can currently claim we have. Their mortal form may be their default size, but I think it's more to do with the perspective they're used to and the practicality of their stature than anything else :3  . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 11:00, October 22, 2013 (UTC)


I was in the middle of defeating Dawn when I totally ran out of ammo, so I left the quest to get some more.. The problem is I don't know how to get back into the quest can anyone help?

I went back to where the quest started but there is no one here what do I do?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) on 14:15, January 3, 2014.

What does this have to do with Zamorak? 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 14:31, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Child of MahEdit

Since we now know that the Mahjarrat are a tribe belonging to a race called the Children of Mah, I wanted to change 'race' on Zamorak's infobox to 'Child of Mah'. But I guess I can't, since the infobox is protected =/ MahjarratInfo101 04:51, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Mahjarrat is still technically accurate, and more descriptive than Child of Mah. --Wahisietel rejuvenated chathead Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon 09:05, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Mahjarrat info... slightly. If their race is called "Children of Mah" (which I didn't see sourced, so why would we think so? That is my only disagreement), then we should mention their "race" at "Race?", that's what they technically and effectively are. . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 22:22, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

God Letters Usage (Not Canon)Edit

A Zamorakian friend of mine told me about this article using a non-canon source, the god letters.

"The God Letters were written for fun and the information contained in them is not to be considered canon unless otherwise mentioned." -Jagex, the god letters webpage

Although I am not a Zamorakian, I feel that it is unfair to be using an explicitly non-canon source for this article.

If it is found elsewhere that Zamorak (and Saradomin) fear Zaros, please add/edit that. This may have been released in the new grandmaster quest, Fate of the Gods, I haven't played that yet. Thanks

Azzanadra rejuvenated chathead Legatus Jace Keni Wahisietel rejuvenated chathead 21:41, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

I can't remember where, but we came to the decision that god letters were canon unless there was something else that conflicted with them. There was another similar case, possibly postbags, that had a similar notice added to them by Jagex but was later clarified in the RSOF. We used that other case as a precedent and applied it to the god letters. cqm 19:00, 29 Mar 2014 (UTC)
here;) . . . Yours, Void Knight banner Enquidou Talk Quest Icon Crest . . 19:51, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

Trip to Infernus Edit

Hey guys, am I cool to alter history sections of different articles on the wiki to detail Zamorak's trip to Infernus as detailed in Zemouregal's memory and Palkeera's memory? Or is that considered controversial/a potentially biased source? --Akthanakos camel chathead Karimabuseer Talk Azzanadra ghost 12:49, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Please do! We're still not very up-to-date with Mahmem and the new elf lore. Do use Template:CiteNPC to source. :) 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 16:00, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Change/add on his info pictureEdit

So Zamorak lost his wings, and as it looks he never regrows it, even during Sliske's endgame. I think the God picture should be changed, if not his post-COM picture added as God (no wings). Thoughts?Guthix symbol Adventurerrr Talk The Godless symbol 20:21, April 13, 2017 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.